From: Stuart D. <st...@as...> - 2004-09-22 14:10:12
|
da...@da... wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Sylvie Greverend wrote: > >> Why this job is not done in 1.10 and backports in 1.9 or why not doing >> another branch when it will be ok (perhaps even merge 1.9 with 1.10 >> as 1.10 >> is not very much different from 1.9. 1.9CVS needs to be better and >> better >> each to offer some help to people who choose it. > > > We cannot release another illegal version through mis-use of licenses. > 1.9 needs to be fully LGPL. > It seems this should have happened before 1.9 was even started. Now that we are up to RC4, I agree with Sylvie and think this should go into 1.10 and be back-ported. 1.9 could have a caveat that there is a mix of code which is being cleaned up. Howeber breaking the 1.9 process like this seems reckless. If the consensus is that 1.9 can't go out with mixed licenses then we should consider removing the offending functionality from 1.9 altogether. Turning the 1.9 release with reduced functionality, and then fixing things in 1.10. This could impact a fewer number of 1.9 users, allow the 1.9 release to go forward, demonstrate the importance of sticking to the licenses. |